The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-28
THE WRIT OF ERROR
Asked for in the Condemned
Anarchists Behalf.
IN THE q. S. SUPREME COURT.
The Arguments of Hon. j Randolph
Tucker and Attorney
Hunt, OF Illinois.
The Anarchists.

ton of the arguments before the United
States Supreme Court, to-day, upon the
petition for a writ of error in the Chi
cago Anarchists case, attracted to the
capitol a crowd of eager people, who
seemed as anxious to gain admission to
the court room as if the Anarchists
themselves were to be presentin chains,
and to argue their own case in person.
More than an hour before the court as
sembled. the court room was densely
packed with people. Even out in the
corridor there was crowd endeavoring
to at least get glimpse Of the interior
of the court room. The audience was
destined. however, to be, at least for a
time, disappointed. When the court
was called TO order at noon and the
candidates for admission to the bar had
been sworn, the Chief justice announced
that the court would proceed with the
unfinished business of yesterday.
About l o'clock Mr.. Tucker opened
the argument in support of the petit
ton. He said ii was not necessary for
him to show as conditions precedent to
the granting of the suit. that the action
complained of in the court below was
actually repugrant to or in violation of
1b
sary to show that q conflict had arisen,
that there was a question whether the
action complained of was not repug-
nant to the Constitution; that was
enough to give this court Jurisdiction. 1t
was not necessary to show repugnancy,
but only conflict. If there is con-
fict, then this court has jurisdiction
and if it has jurisdiction then the
petitioners are entitled to the writ as a
right. The policy of this court, he
said, had been known to deal literally
with petitions for Writs of error in civil
cases. How much more should it deal
literally with a petition for a writ of
error in a criminal case involving the
issue of life and death, in a case where
life was about to be taken away in VIC
lation Of the Constitution
Procs eding then to the merits of the
case, Tucker said it was not necessary
that law of a State should be abso-
Iutely and on its face unconstitutional
in order to give this Court Jurisdiction
of the case under it. If law, seem
ingly fair and just on its face, should
have put upon it by State courts con
struCtion contrary to the Cons itu 10 4,
that was enough to give this Court
jurisdic ton.
Tucker then reviewed the history of
the adoption of the fourteenth amend
ment, and said although it was origi-
naIly intended to guarantee particularly
the rights of enfranchised blacks, there
was no reason why white citizens
should not enjoy the benefits of its
provisions.
Tucker quoted the fourteenth amend.
mem me t aud Ciscussed the meaning
of the words, due process of law, and
eosA oil cd 81
by It's Coz It hat trial without indict-
ment by grand jury might be "due
process Of law aud might be perfectly
constitutional, it has never been held
or intimated that trial by petit Jury
could be dispensed with. 1t seemed, he
said, to be everywhere conceded that
"due process OF law" required trial by
a jury of ones peers. 1t is essential
that the jury should be unbiased, un-
prejudiced and impartial, and that it
should not be a class Jury. Tucker
then asserted that the jury law of ILL
nois was unconstitutional. in that it
provided that the forming of an
opinion from reports or newspaper
accounts of certain transactions,
should not necessarily disqualify
q person having such opin-
ion lfom sitting in judgment of
though the law might seem to be fair
and Just, if, by construction and ad-
ministration it were made to deny to
prisoners the right of trial by fair
and impartial jury then such construc.
ton and administration constituted
law and made it unconstituticn nal. The
construction given to the law in this
case was different from the construction
given to it in q large number of other
cases in the same State.
He then referred to the objection made
by the defense at the trial; TO The rul
ings of the Court in the m after of
challenges; to the refusal of he Court
on the motion for new trial; to hear
the evidence going to shown that the |
bailiff had sid that 1.-THE men he had |
selected for the panel would Re certain |
to hayg," s1d to various other rulings |
and decisions of the trial court which
had the effect of denying TO the prison.
ers fair trial by all impartial jury.
Turning then to another question
raised by the case, which, he said,
was a new one in this court, he quoted |
the second clause OF the fourteenth
amendment, to the effect that mo !
State shall make or enforce any law
which shall Abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United |
States" Among the privileges and
immunities' thus granted by the four
teenth amendment were, he continued
those set forth in the first ten amend.
nents to the Federal Constitution. 1t
has been maintained, he said,
that these first ten amendments to
the Constitution were limitations of
Federal power only, but il was his be
lief that unless the privileges and i'm
munities were specifically said to be
merely limitations of Federal power,
they we're privileges and immunities
which came within the purview of the
fourteenth amendment and were guar
anteed By il.
Chief Justice Waite-"Then you
would Or ng ali questions TO this G urt?"
Il cannot conceive Of any question
which canro be brought here If the
Fourteenth Amendment makes the
privileges and lrnmunites' to which it |
refers include all thoss of the list ten
amendments"